FDA and USDA Seek Comments on Defining Ultra-Processed Foods

On July 25, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a joint Request for Information (RFI) to solicit information and data to help the agencies develop a uniform federal definition of so-called ultra-processed foods (UPF or UPFs). This RFI comes amid the rise of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, burgeoning consumer scrutiny of the healthfulness of foods and food additives, and state legislative activity calling for regulatory definitions of UPFs that could ultimately trigger an impractical state-by-state patchwork of definitions.

What Is an “Ultra-Processed Food”?

Although the term “ultra-processed foods” has been in use in limited circles since the 1980s, today the most commonly referenced definition of this term stems from the “NOVA” system developed by Brazilian researchers in 2009.  This system classifies food into four categories: (1) unprocessed or minimally processed foods; (2) processed culinary ingredients; (3) processed foods; and (4) ultra-processed foods.  FDA explains in its RFI that, under the NOVA system, a food qualifies as a UPF based on “things like the use of certain ingredients and substances (such as emulsifiers, bulking agents, or thickeners), industrial processing technologies, as well as sophisticated packaging, that result in a palatable and appealing product,” among other factors.

However, the NOVA system has been criticized regarding its ability to accurately identify foods that may impact health. For example, whereas it categorizes a broad range of processed snack foods as UPFs, this system potentially categorizes certain nutrient-rich foods known to have beneficial effects on health—such as whole grain products or yogurt—as UPFs.

MAHA Casts Spotlight on UPFs

The president’s MAHA Commission has cast a spotlight on UPFs, bringing this term into the everyday lexicon of Americans and driving a national discourse and state legislative activity around the impact of certain foods and food additives on health. In particular, the MAHA Commission’s “Make Our Children Healthy Again: Assessment” adopted the following definition of UPFs: “packaged and ready-to-consume products that are formulated for shelf life and/or palatability but are typically high in added sugars, refined grains, unhealthy fats, and sodium and low in fiber and essential nutrients.” The Assessment recommended shifting children’s diets to “whole foods” as opposed to UPFs.

Request for Information

Below we distill the key questions noted in the agencies’ RFI:

• Existing UPF classification systems and policies.
• What, if any, existing classification systems (e.g., the NOVA system) or policies should the agencies consider when defining UPFs?
• What are the advantages and challenges of using these systems to classify a food as ultra-processed, and how suitable are these systems for the U.S. food supply?
• Ingredients commonly associated with UPFs.
• What types of prominent and less prominent ingredients (e.g., ingredients that may share a similar composition, function, or purpose) might be used to characterize a food as ultra-processed?
• To what extent, if any, should the relative amount of an ingredient affect classification as a UPF?
• Should flavors and color additives should be considered separately when classifying UPFs?
• What other ingredients or ingredient-related criteria should or should not be used to characterize a food as ultra-processed?
• Processing techniques.
• What physical, biological, chemical, and other process-related techniques might be used to characterize a food as ultra-processed?
• Potential terminology alternatives.
• Is the term “ultra-processed” the most appropriate term to “capture the concerns associated with these products”?
• Is there another term the agencies should consider?  If so, please name and define that term, and provide specific scenarios and citations to support its use.
• Nutritional and sensory attributes.
• To what extent and how should nutritional composition or the presence of certain nutrients, energy density, palatability, and other attributes be incorporated in a definition of UPFs?
• Uniform UPF definition.
• How might the various factors queried above be integrated into a uniform UPF definition that can be systematically measured and applied to foods sold in the U.S.?
• In addition, what considerations should be taken into account when operationalizing this definition in food and nutrition policies and programs?

Looking Ahead

This RFI presents the first formal opportunity for stakeholders to share views on a potential federal definition of UPFs and whether the government should favor a different approach. For example, some argue that a nutrient-based approach rather than a processing-based approach is a more accurate way to help consumers understand the healthfulness of foods they purchase and consume. Bringing to bear the latest science and related data in responses to this RFI will be key to facilitating a successful path forward for the food industry and consumers alike.  Adopting a federal definition of UPFs could influence a range of issues important to the food and beverage industry, from product innovation and consumer perception to limiting state legislative activity.

The RFI comment period is currently open through September 23, 2025. MoFo frequently assists our clients with preparing comments for submission to the FDA and USDA and is happy to assist with developing comments for this RFI.

If you have any questions concerning the developments discussed in this client alert, please contact the authors.